OH8: Trial strategy was that the drugs weren’t def’s; a motion to suppress would have to argue standing; no IAC

Pursuing a motion to suppress would have been contrary to trial strategy that it wasn’t his stuff. “In overruling the first assignment of error, on ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to move to suppress, this court noted that moving to suppress the search warrant would have contradicted Burton’s trial strategy that because he did not live in the house, he could not be guilty of charges.” State v. Burton, 2020-Ohio-375, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 343 (8th Dist. Jan. 31, 2020).

After an arrest outside the apartment, one defendant consented to an entry to discuss it further and to conduct a protective sweep inside, which was found to be consensual. United States v. Hall, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19134 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 16, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Protective sweep, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.